
| Issue 291 | October 23, 2000 |
|
Although the document concludes that the bypass would "avoid or minimize
environmental harm," critics cannot imagine a more environmentally disruptive
path through the scenic region. The document leaves much to be desired,
particularly regarding its narrow definition of the need for the project,
its assessment of the ability of alternatives to reduce travel demand,
its discussion of compliance with NJ's State Plan and regional and local
plans, and its consideration of less environmentally destructive improvement
alternatives.
In fact, data in the study shows the highway will do little in the short or longer term to "maintain or improve" traffic flow on U.S. Route 1 in the project area. The Bypass ostensibly will allow the removal of three traffic signals on Route 1 now causing back-ups. However, the same motorists now trying to cross Route 1 at the to-be-removed lights will still be stalled by the additional three lights DOT plans to add along the Bypass. More dramatically, the "Traffic Analysis Findings" clearly state that the $50 million elevated highway will not improve traffic conditions at all after it is built. Quoting from the assessment: "The Levels of Service for Build and No-Build conditions along Route 1 are equivalent LOS 'E' (in 2022). However, when reviewing the vehicle throughputs of the Build and the No-Build conditions, the Build condition has approximately 35% more vehicle throughput." |
In other words, the DOT predicts that the Millstone Bypass will not improve traffic speed, but will instead would draw 35% more cars and trucks into the small stretch of U.S. Route 1 and County Road 571 - commonly known as Penns Neck - twenty years after its construction. In what could be a "first" for NJDOT, the assessment candidly admits: "With the traffic signals removed, the capacity increase that is provided by removing the restraints is quickly utilized by the latent traffic demand," i.e. the bypass will fill with new traffic.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |